I prefer to use Sass over SCSS. The terse syntax is really very nice, I don't miss having to use curly braces and semi-colons.
This article wrongly alludes to a few aspects of Sass ...
- Using Sass doesn't mean you can't use CSS files, you can still name these SCSS and import them into a central Sass file. Sass and SCSS are compatible (albeit not in the same file).
- Sass will still allow you to use @mixin and @include as well as the equivalent shorter versions.
Seems like SCSS has very clearly won out and that the Sass syntax should be retired to reduce confusion. Even the official Sass site now defaults to SCSS for all the examples and hides Sass behind a tab.
Don't be so sure about that. There's a reason why it's called Sass.
Because that used to be the only option
For what I understand, Sass is the language, SCSS is a version. SCSS is Sass's third official release. I would assume the original Sass is dead.
I use SCSS mainly because of the backwards compatibility with CSS. No conversion necessary to move from a CSS file to a SCSS one, just pop on the extension.
I swore by SCSS for a long time, but once I fully switched over to HAML, Sass just seemed to mesh so much better with it. I feel like I have to mentally change gears when going from HAML to SCSS, but not from HAML to Sass.
Sass is useful if you're familiar with HAML (or Python since both use indents as part of their syntax) and want a similar workflow when creating your own stylesheets.
SCSS is the preferred method for most people since it's very similar to writing normal CSS anyways and you can pretty much write normal CSS if you wanted to. That's the primary reason why I use SCSS instead.